MySQL Changes License To Avoid GPLv3

munchola writes "MySQL has quietly changed the license it uses for its database to avoid being forced to move to the forthcoming GPLv3. CBRonline is reporting that Kaj Arno, MySQL VP of community relations, revealed the license change on his blog, noting it was made 'in order to make it an option, not an obligation for the company to move to GPLv3.'"

Good for them.

[FishWithAHammer]

I have severe problems with the GPLv3 as-is; I feel they're trying to stuff a brand of morality and a system of thought down the throats of programmers who licensed their creations in good faith under the GPLv2.

Anyone who takes a step back and says "now wait a tick" to that kind of thing, I like. Maybe the GPLv3 won't be as bad as it seems, but that little "or any later version" clause is one that simply should not be included for projects of any magnitude.

Re:Hoopla!

[Jussi K. Kojootti]

"has become"? Maybe you should do some research find out what Free Software means and has meant for as long as the term has existed... What you are suggesting is not even close to the definition pretty much everyone else uses.

Uhm. And?

[repvik]

Let me see.... So, they're changing the licence from now on. But I can still download a GPLv2-and-later licenced one that just isn't the latest version.

So, are they planning on adding features that will be incompatible with GPLv3?

Re:Hoopla!

[Anonymous Coward]

No. I'm still going to release everything I do under the GPL, just to annoy BSD fanboys like you.

Just because right now I'm not making money from most of the the software I release under the GPL, doesn't mean that I may not choose to try and do so in the future. If I'm short sighted about it and release my software under the BSDL now only to find that when I do decide I'd like to commercialise my software that someone else is already doing so, I will have shot myself in the foot. Using the GPL doesn't stop this happening as such, but it does place me back on a level playing field with whoever else is commercialising my software.

Of course those people who do release their software under the BSDL are welcome to do so, and I say fair play to them. They're obviously happy to do that. I am not (For the most part)

Quietly?

[iandunn]

"MySQL has quietly changed the license it uses... VP of community relations, revealed the license change on his blog..."

How does the VP of community relations announcing it on his blog qualify as 'quietly changing'? What do you want them to do, throw a bloody parade? Not everything is a secret plot to destroy OSS.

Re:This makes no sense

[Baricom]

But they're not forcing anything. Anybody with old code can still patch with code licensed by GPL version 3. All this does is restrict code released starting today.

Re: Agendas

[mpapet]

While sticking with V2 is the right thing to dor for Adium, you may be ignoring the critical loophole in V2 that they are attempting to close.

Tivo has abused V2 in a novel way that privatizes their software. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tivoization [wikipedia.org] Tivo is just the beginning of V2 abuse. (novell/microsoft anyone?) What happens when Trusted Computing is fully implemented? Tivo on a massive scale.

I'm saying this agenda benefits everyone tomorrow rather than sticking with V2 where the public benefits will come to an end through clever manipulations of GPL V2.

Re:This makes no sense

[Cyclops]

Well, if MySQL should be usable with GPL2, the "or later clause" may cause problems. For example a GPLv3-only-licensed patch would force MySQL to the new license.

This makes absolutely no sense:

1. they have the right to REJECT the patch
2. they require copyright assignment so they could change the license anyway

Somehow, when a company capitalizes on the "commercial" confusion, it doesn't surprise me at all that they would make this "error" (I don't think it's accidental, I mean to suggest they are faking a confusion, as in the "commercial" term, in order to forbid anyone from making a GPL V3 fork of MySQL)

The "commercial" term "confusion" they capitalize upon make many think that in order to make a commercial application they would have to get the proprietary version of MySQL.

That, of course, makes no sense at all. The FSF explains it very succintly [gnu.org], and David Wheeler quite recently explained it in a very detailed manner [dwheeler.com].

Re:It gives FSF a blank check, not a good idea ...

[MMC Monster]

I totally agree. People that use the ...or later clause are assuming that they agree with everything the FSF will ever include in the GPL license.

What I wish: They take everything they are going to put in GPL v3 into a license with a different name, so that code writers don't have to worry about what the exact wording they used years ago.

Why couldn't they just have called the GPLv3 something like the Gnu Free License v1 (GFPL v1), or something like that? They are riding on the coat tails of the GPL v2, and thus don't have faith that the new license will have it's own traction.

Migrated away from MySQL

[Anonymous Coward]

We develop database apps for small local govts and migrated away from MySQL to Postgres exactly because of all the licensing wierdness going on with MySQL and its various backend data storage engines. Its future has just become too unpredicatable and uncertain anymore. Such a shame, because it is such a lightweight and nimble database. Too bad the MySQL organization seems to be headed down a path to crumbling apart.

It allows MySQL to pursue patent lawsuits

[Anonymous Coward]

It makes absolutely perfect sense, for MySQL. By staying with GPL2 they can pursue Software Patent claims against GPL3 projects.

Sort of like how Microsoft can now fork a Linux distribution via Novell, and still retain the right to pursue Patent Lawsuits against other Open Source projects.

I have no idea if this is actually MySQL's intention. But given how closely they've worked with SCO, I wouldn't put it past them.

'able to obtain'?

[The Monster]

Now Tivo comes along and takes your software and with a legal trick circumvents your license, making sure nobody is actually able to obtain Tivo's modifications to your software.

Every bit of Tivo's source code is available, and anyone who wants to use it can use the software. You are completely free to use that software on any hardware that will run it. They've built hardware with PROM bootstrap that refuses to execute a kernel that isn't signed by a Tivo key. There are very good reasons why a company might want to do that. First of all is to be able to void any warranty they provide for the hardware, and support services for users, should an unofficial kernel be used.

I'd like to see the Tivo guys put a sticker somewhere inside the unit that says 'warranty void if removed', and under that sticker have a one-way switching mechanism that a user could engage to accept the responsibility for running unauthorized kernels, which would disengage that feature of the 'BIOS'. The absence of such an opt-out mechanism is probably a deal-breaker for many potential buyers.

So use Myth TV instead. You can even contribute some of Tivo's modifications to the project if you like.